Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

neptune wrote:

firstimpulse wrote:

...Of course, even they question their ability to pull all those resourses together and use them simultaneously.

I agree but if they were to attack,..... four heavy torpedoes into the propellers and the CBG is out of attack and into the defensive mode. Idea

No 'Wind Across the Deck" for heavy lift weapons loads. But, maybe the EMAL could makeup the difference if the nose gear could stand the loads. Question

I would not volunteer for this mission, there would be little possibility for rtb. Sad

Our subs are two generations ahead of theirs, not to mention all the ASW capability the USN has flying off of carriers. The reason they want to attack with cruise missiles is because they know they'll get creamed if they get too close.

F-16.net Sponsor

jeffb wrote:

neurotech wrote:

The main advantage is quick response compared to surface vessels and range. A Super Hornet can fly CAP 200+ miles from the carrier. Although not in the fleet yet, the P-8 carries the AGM-65 Maverick & AGM-84 (inc SLAM-ER) It is probably that the P-8 would also be rated to fly with ABM-capable missiles.

I wasn't aware that the USN had even tested firing a SM-3 from an aircraft. Are you sure they've tried this? What about all the guidance issues? How does the Shornet handle those? What's the advantage of firing it from an aircraft anyway? Why would the response be quicker than that of an AEGIS cruiser?

They have fired similar size/weight missiles before from a Super Hornet. The SM-3 ASAT was fired from a center pylon of a F-15. The SM series missiles were originally designed with air-launch capability.

The inner pylons are quite strong on the SH and designed to handle 480 Gal tanks. The Super Hornet can handle large asymmetry as long as AoA doesn't get exceeded. One pilot accidently jettisoned a 480 Gal tank and still got aboard with the 3 remaining tanks.

The Super Hornet uses a data-link to control weapons from the back seat. The "quicker" part comes from the SH being able to fly 100s of miles from the fleet at a speed of 400+ Knots.

The ASAT missile was nowhere near the size of an SM-3 even without its booster attached. I think you're off base with your story. There is no justification to field any SM-2 size missiles. The days of the AIM-54 are passed, much smaller and far more lethal missiles have taken over the role.

A few good observations on what's been said here and a few of my own:

"The core of the Navy's early conflict striking power will be in the SSNs and SSGNs, and not in the F-35C." This is absolutely true in the high intensity conflict scenario.

"Our subs are two generations ahead of theirs, not to mention all the ASW capability the USN has flying off of carriers." Also true.

Now, we shouldn't be talking about the Chinese anti-carrier capability now, but what will it be in 2020-2030? They'll use space based platforms and or drones for there initial targeting and most likely very effective terminal IR or UV homing on the missiles. This will make evading a mass attack for a large ship like a CVN difficult. If you have seen the US or Aussy videos on what a 1000 or 2000 pound bomb can do to a ship, then you can get a pretty good sense of what the warheads in those ballistic anti-ship missile will do. They don't have to sink the carrier, just make it combat ineffective.

As for the F-35C and the question: "What is with people trying to convince the USN to forgo the only LO fighter they could possibly get for the next couple of decades?" First, many years ago, the Navy said it would never, EVER buy another single engine aircraft for carrier use. About the same time, they said they would never make the mistake again of having a fighter with no internal gun. Now here we are, making both mistakes again. Second, does anyone think the F-35 is going to remain "low observable" from 2020 when the Navy will get it until 2040? With sensor advancement at it's current rate, it may not even be LO in year one!. Third, in a high intensity conflict, the range and payload of the F-35 without using outboard storage just won't get the job done (for deep strike). Give me a squadron F-15Es and a couple B-1s with robust Growler jamming support and F-16 or drone Wild Weasels and I'll put MANY tonnes of precision weapons deep in the enemies heartland. Yes F-22s and or F-15/F-18s will have to fly CAP overhead. Yes there will be losses - it's war. And yes the augment with the F-35 is that you wont need all that support. That sounds great, but the problem is; in it's LO configuration, the F-35 just doesn't have the horsepower (payload) or range to get the job done. Plus, the F-35 is not as fast, has a smaller radar, and carries far fewer air to air weapons than the Strike Eagle (when both are in deep strike mode). So the F-35 just cannot get itself out of trouble vs the Russian made 4.5 gen fighters. Heck the Navy version won't even have a inboard cannon! An F-16A would stand a better chance if caught behind enemy lines by a pair of Sukois! What difference does the stealth make if they are using 21st century IR sensors to find that huge engine the F-35 has? Fourth, for what the F-35 is going to cost the Navy, you could have a lot more robust F-18 Super Hornet, Growler, and advanced drone force. There is more than one way to penetrate modern air defense systems. Fifth. In a low to mid intensity conflict (the kind we tend to fight), the Navy would be better served by a modernized / navalized A-10 or similar aircraft. Lethal, long legs, heavy pay-load, good AAA survivability, and great low speed (carrier type) handling. It would be able to take off, and more importantly, land with large weapons loads. Deck it out with all the latest avionics and replace the big 30mm cannon on 1/2 or 1/3 of your inventory with a AESA radar and you'd have one hell of a carrier based maritime patrol aircraft. Data link the one with the AESA to two or three others that retain the big GAU cannon and you'd have a very dynamic team for everything from inland CAS to littoral maritime interdiction. Oh, and they wouldn't cost $130 million per copy! With the money saved, buy more Growlers and Drones and render the enemy radars everyone is so worried about ineffective by both EW and kinetic means.

Mobile TELs (DH-10/DF-21Ds) can't be supressed with tomahawks. At some point in time, F-35s (and F-22s) will need to go in. Whacking a dispersed targeting system with lots of redundancy and deceptive capabilities like the Chinese have, isn't that simple either.

Although past wars have enabled subs to get into position fairly quickly, will it be the same with China? Can we expect the PLAN to use the same chokepoints to limit inbound subs. It will take a lot more tomahawks to make a diff in China as compared to Iraq/Libya.

As to next gen fighter, looks like recent GAO complaints about starting projects before a certain level of technological maturity seems to have fallen on deaf ears...any new tech to date (or for the near future) would have been incorporated into the F-35C. The next gen will only be theoretical in any advantage over the F-35C.

madrat wrote:

The ASAT missile was nowhere near the size of an SM-3 even without its booster attached. I think you're off base with your story. There is no justification to field any SM-2 size missiles. The days of the AIM-54 are passed, much smaller and far more lethal missiles have taken over the role.

I think your wrong on the size comparison. I didn't say pull a current SM-3 out of its launch tube and stick it on the wing. My point is that there is a requirement for anti-ballistic missile capability and it is likely to be a larger missile.

To compare the two(SM-3/ASAT):
Length: (6.53m/5.8m)
Diameter: (0.35m/0.5m)
Weight: (1500kg/1180 kg)

For comparison, the current largest missile going to the fleet is the a 1020kg AGM-158 JASSM. That isn't a small missile either.

The AIM-54 Phoenix was phased out because it was only effective against bombers and not fighters/attack jets. The AIM-120 is a better missile against a enemy fighter.

I can be sure the the DoD are taking the ASBM threat seriously and a Air-Launched ABM is an option.

All that ASW capability hasn't meant squat in exercises against diesel subs in a littoral environment and as that Chinese sub that popped up a couple of miles off the Kitty Hawk showed, all they have to do is sit quietly in the CGs path and wait for it to run over them.

The other issue with the DF-21D is the ability of the Chinese to add decoys to the warhead. This is easy to do and multiplies the cost of an active defence of the carrier by a factor of 5 at least. Defending against an attack by 10 or 15 DF-21Ds with an additional 50 decoys thrown in with SM-3? Good luck.

No wonder the USN is concerned.

weasel1962 wrote:

Mobile TELs (DH-10/DF-21Ds) can't be supressed with tomahawks. At some point in time, F-35s (and F-22s) will need to go in. Whacking a dispersed targeting system with lots of redundancy and deceptive capabilities like the Chinese have, isn't that simple either.

A F-35 or a drone could relay targeting and using the data-linked Tomahawks for the actual strike.

weasel1962 wrote:

It will take a lot more tomahawks to make a diff in China as compared to Iraq/Libya.

I'm not sure the exact number of cruise missiles available in a battle group but its several hundred. That is enough to disrupt command-control in even a country like China.

neurotech wrote:

A F-35 or a drone could relay targeting and using the data-linked Tomahawks for the actual strike.

Simplistic. In actual combat, the F-35 or drone would have to cover thousands of km2. All of which are within defended Chinese air space.

neurotech wrote:

I'm not sure the exact number of cruise missiles available in a battle group but its several hundred. That is enough to disrupt command-control in even a country like China.

Ship launched TLAMs don't out-range a DH-10 or a DF-21D. Don't think the USN wants its surface vessels to go toe to toe with land-based mobile ASCMs/ASBMs. That's what subs are for.

As to Tomahawk inventories, what a CG "can" carry doesn't mean its equipped with. There isn't that many Tomahawks to go around. These aren't cheap $10k items.

Indicative source of Toms inventory
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm

weasel1962 wrote:

neurotech wrote:

A F-35 or a drone could relay targeting and using the data-linked Tomahawks for the actual strike.

Simplistic. In actual combat, the F-35 or drone would have to cover thousands of km2. All of which are within defended Chinese air space.

In actual combat, the jets know where they are headed. They know from satellites where to go looking for TELs and other targets. Command & Control would be targeted and degrade the effectiveness of TELs.

weasel1962 wrote:

neurotech wrote:

I'm not sure the exact number of cruise missiles available in a battle group but its several hundred. That is enough to disrupt command-control in even a country like China.

Ship launched TLAMs don't out-range a DH-10 or a DF-21D. Don't think the USN wants its surface vessels to go toe to toe with land-based mobile ASCMs/ASBMs. That's what subs are for.

True, but I did say Carrier Group and not any particular platform. I don't think the USN is going to keep the CG 1500 miles away either.

weasel1962 wrote:

As to Tomahawk inventories, what a CG "can" carry doesn't mean its equipped with. There isn't that many Tomahawks to go around. These aren't cheap $10k items.

Indicative source of Toms inventory
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm

I think that article is old and out of date. According to Adm. Roughead, its over 3000 tomahawks post-Libya.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-2 ... hases.html

See below for details of June 2012 order for more Tomahawks.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Blo ... ped-07423/

This also might make interesting reading. Two SSGNs near China in 2010.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 78,00.html

neurotech wrote:

In actual combat, the jets know where they are headed. They know from satellites where to go looking for TELs and other targets. Command & Control would be targeted and degrade the effectiveness of TELs.

There is a sequence issue here. The mobile TELs need to be located first before you can fire Toms at them. In order to ID, you need planes/drones over there. Carrier planes need to be within range of the TELs before you can send the planes over (esp when there aren't many land bases near China). They need to stay for quite some time to search for these launchers. Its not as simple as one thinks even with today's tech. Read the experience of finding scuds in desert storm....and that's already with air superiority in a smaller search area which won't be the case in China (at least in the opening round).

The USN can fire Toms on fixed targets since they know where these are. But the Chinese know that the USN knows so they're not going to make it that easy either. You can't suppress DH-10s and DF-21Ds with just Tomahawks.

There needs to be some realistic assessment of deployment as well. Not everything is located just off China’s coast, even with Panetta’s Asia pivot.

AIM-54 was retired as a platform because of cost. It had no issue hitting small targets. It was the 20 hours of maintenance per flight hour that killed it off. AIM-120A isn't even a quarter of that. So no more of this crap that AIM-54 couldn't hit fighters.

If hunting for masked MBTs is any indication of the difficulty of hunting for TELs then don't expect them to be located until they mean to be seen. Modern sensors still cannot find hidden assets like what some want to believe.

This talk of being able to take out a sufficient number of Chicom anti ballistic missile sites to ensure a carrier group's safety and employment close to Taiwan is naive. One, they would be mobile. Two, they would use a lot of well made decoys (2 to 3 decoys for every actual weapon). Three, have you looked at a map and seen how much ground they can use to disperse these things? A better strategy would be to go after the satellites and other sensors that they would use for targeting. Even then, a carrier group isn't going to be something you can hide in the year 2020. People don't want to accept change, but the fact is, a carrier group is to a high intensity conflict in the year 2020, what the battleship was in 1941. This fact is compounded by the fact that we seen bent on putting short range strike aircraft (F-18s and F-35s) on them. And yes, with any kind of significant payload, they are very short range birds. We need a submersible launch platform and much longer legged naval airframes, manned or unmanned. That's what should have happened instead of the Ford class carriers. If the money was there we'd also need to develop a new long range bomber that employs F-22 type capabilities (stealth and super cruise), or an low orbital bomber. Absent the cash to do that, we need to continuing modernizing the B-1s with the best avionics, sensors, countermeasures, and engines possible.

Redbird87, I am agree with your most recent post. Most of it make sense though not too sure if upgrading the BONEs will make it more survivable in a cost-effective manner. Anyway, more on your previous post...its sounds like you a proposing a Package Q like strike package in a modern high intensity conflict. If I remember correctly, Package Q got its a*** handed to it in Iraq during the first Gulf War. And that was in 1991! What you are proposing will probably work in most circumstances but I am for minimising losses as much as possible- just imagine how much more effective EW and SEAD will be when you use it in conjunction with assets which are predominantly VLO. I guess it depends how you use your assets. There will always be a role for current generation multirole fighter aircraft even in a decade but an F35 (even with all its foibles and weaknesses) will be a more effective and survivable asset to perform strikes on high value enemy targets (eg Command and Control) and to conduct SEAD in a high threat environments. In terms of air to air threats, obviously you will using some F35s configured in air to air loadouts or F22s to escort the strike configured F35s or to conduct an OCA sweep first. You can't look at a platform in isolation. Sure, sensor technology is advancing pretty quick especially in multispectral forms but I don't think it is a silver bullet. Multispectral sensors that do not rely on RF energy will not as easy to use as radar especially when you need to determine a target's actual vector in addition to its location and multispectral sensors can still be spoofed (but much harder). Another thing as well, a Strike Eagle may well carry more air to air missiles but that wouldn't matter much if an SA 6, much less a S 300 "telephone pole" is flying towards it with its name on it particularly if friendly EW and SEAD efforts were not 100% effective in suppressing an enemy IAD network. Not sure about using A 10s as a MPA or as a primary strike platform in a mid level conflict (good for low level conflict). The A 10 is not particulalrly long legged in terms of combat radius frankly and is not the best primary strike platform to enter enemy airspace if the enemy has a half decent IADS or fighter force that has not been suppressed.

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

F-35: Super Hornet hedge